When it comes to nuclear power it usually takes a while for the truth to come out. And now six months after Japan’s catastrophic earthquake and tsunami, sparked off the current crisis at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, the truth is finally beginning to emerge.

The Japanese government and the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) still struggling to bring the stricken Fukushima reactors under control today, but the consequences of this crisis are set to continue for decades. As time goes on, of the long term radioactive contamination that has spread over wide areas that will take decades to dissipate; this risks of potential health problems, and ongoing contamination of food supplies. Large areas around the nuclear will remain off limits.

The official response to the Fukushima disaster is still lacking in comprehensiveness, transparency and urgency. Information that would ensure public safety and confidence has not been forthcoming from the government, which itself is still playing catch-up: proper radiation monitoring, timely and clear advice, adequate protective measures and support – including the evacuation of most vulnerable parts of the population - are still lacking, but should been launched at the very beginning.

In the wake of Fukushima, Germany and Italy have both taken the courageous step in turning their backs on nuclear energy. In Japan and elsewhere, however, the nuclear industry is trying to ensure business as usual despite, becoming increasingly dogged in cover-up and scandals.

Instead of taking control of the situation, and earning the public’s trust by being transparent, TEPCO remains reluctant to provide important information about the nuclear crisis. This is a trend that has continued since the beginning of the crisis. TEPCO’s nuclear accident operating manual was released to a government committee this week. The committee found it so heavily censored that it was unreadable. Even Naoto Kan, who recent stepped down as Prime Minister was in the dark about what TEPCO was doing, saying that he personally visited the Fukushima reactors the day after the crisis began ‘because we were not receiving accurate information from the plant’.

The Fukushima disaster has shown the world that nuclear power is fundamentally unsafe, and those with a vested interest in it are not to be trusted. It’s time to put our trust and our futures in safe, clean energy sources like wind and solar. To rebuild its economy, to recover from the tragic events of March 11, and to protect the health and safety of its people, Japan can an Energy Revolution - and it can have it now. Watch this space next week to see how Japan does not need to depend on nuclear power.

To get a feel for how the Fukushima disaster has unfolded since March 11, check out our new interacting timeline:

Many thanks for your excellent blogposts!
Perhaps I missed an entry but I am a bit surprised that you have not mentioned the TEPCO data of the F...

Many thanks for your excellent blogposts!
Perhaps I missed an entry but I am a bit surprised that you have not mentioned the TEPCO data of the Fukushima Daiichi radiation release that were recently published (sort of) by the Japanese METI
http://www.meti.go.jp/press/2011/08/20110826010/20110826010-2.pdf
Scary stuff! The data on page 2 are from the Hiroshima nuclear bomb for comparison ...

I am a greenpeace supporter, but i am saddened by your stance on nuclear. Germany has started a massive new build of coal power stations. Even with it...

I am a greenpeace supporter, but i am saddened by your stance on nuclear. Germany has started a massive new build of coal power stations. Even with its renewable plans will take it decades for it to get its CO2 emissions back to where it is today. We need rapid action to stop climate change, and that is incompatible with a shut down of nuclear power.

Greenpeace, all the industry "dirty tricks" pale in comparison to yours! For instance:

"Ongoing risks the disaster is havi...

Greenpeace, all the industry "dirty tricks" pale in comparison to yours! For instance:

"Ongoing risks the disaster is having on their children"
Reported 0.4 Bq/kg of Cs-137 in children urine: that is ca. 1/250 of the natural level due to K-40... Even assuming this contamination to remain constant (it disappears with a period of 70 dys), this amounts to a "staggering" level of the order of 1 µSv/year, vs. natural exposure of ca. 2'500 µSv/year and average medical exposure of 1'000 µSv/year (so on average 3'500x higher). You're being utterly dishonest in hyping this up!

Nuclear power is NOT needed to move the world to a more sustainable model. To even consider nuclear power is lunacy. You cannot fix a problem by repla...

Nuclear power is NOT needed to move the world to a more sustainable model. To even consider nuclear power is lunacy. You cannot fix a problem by replacing it with another problem, nor by only removing part of the problem. Nothing about nuclear power is acceptable. It uses massive amounts of fossil fuel to mine and manufacture, destroys the environment through its mining, creates nuclear waste that will remain dangerous for tens of thousands of years and is the most expensive energy that has ever existed. It is destroying life on this planet. It is not acceptable to destroy life with nuclear power instead of global warming. We must not destroy life with either.

"Massive amounts of fossil fuel"
Overall: ca. 50 g CO2/kWh, vs. gas ≈450, coal ≈1'000
Implication: if you're using more than ≈10% gas to back up wind farms or solar panels, you're running above this figure. In practice, most countries use much more than 10%...

In Europe, top g CO2/kWh performers for electricity generation, such as Sweden, France & Switzerland have a large nuclear share (combining well with hydroelectric dams). In contrast, top wind farm & PV countries such as Germany and Danemark have horrific values (1).

"Nuclear waste for tens of thousands of years"
Uranium, thorium and potassium-40 have been there for billions of years, the latter (K-40) largely contaminating our bodies, together with radon from the ground. Life has prospered on Earth nevertheless... Needless to say, contamination from our nuclear waste, if properly managed and stored, is expected to be negligible in comparison.

"Expensive energy"
Costs of nuclear are similar to those of fossil-fired plants (2,3), but (almost) without the CO2. If you count the needed fossil backup for most renewables, performance is much worse (both in cost and in CO2) than nuclear.

@ssam - if you are saddedned by Germany's approach, then deal with them, not Greenpeace for poiting out their nuclear errors.

@Zamm - you...

@ssam - if you are saddedned by Germany's approach, then deal with them, not Greenpeace for poiting out their nuclear errors.

@Zamm - your stats do not take into account either the deaths in the event of a massive meltdown, or the deaths from storage / elimination of wastes. They are biased figures attributable to the Nuclear industry. And yes, I do understand the articles that have been written to back up these slanted claims you are making.

Interesting to see that the industry sends "experts" to teach us about the truth of good Nuclear energy and bad Greenpeace ;-) That means th...

Interesting to see that the industry sends "experts" to teach us about the truth of good Nuclear energy and bad Greenpeace ;-) That means they lose so much money that its worth to pay some of these guys crawling around in blogs etc spreading that GP and others are corrupt , lying or whatever THEY ARE THEMSELVES. You dont feel ashamed zamm, ssam or whoever you are ? If you stand behind that technology go to live next to one of the many that are left on this globe...ready to poison the environment and our children. I dont know if you got a family....but anyway dont forget to look into the mirror at night.